Moral Quandary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2012, 03:45 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
(21-10-2012 08:19 PM)Near Wrote:  Consider

Shouldn't the answer be "It's none of your goddamn business what two consenting adults do with each other?"

Why would it be 'morally' wrong? Whose morals is it violating? If you have gone against some morals, you have to have someone to tell you what those morals are. Whether that is you, or a dictator, or a societal consensus. If it's not violating their 'morals', and they were keeping it to themselves, then nobody need be offended by their actions. Sure it's a hypothetical situation, but I would honestly be more surprised if this hadn't actually happened before.

Well considering sex has potential risk of producing a baby (even with protection it's still not 100% baby-free) and incestual babies tend to have major defects I'd say considering it has potential to harm an unborn child in a dramatic way (not to mention the emotional scaring of your parents also being your aunt and uncle) it would be that potential babies business as to them having sex.

I must say, first impression of reading the OP is that the OP wants to fuck his sister... Dodgy

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 05:15 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
Nah. Been there, done that, she wasn't that great. I no longer have any such desire. Smile

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 05:35 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2012 05:38 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Moral Quandary
I think what they did was .001% wrong.. maybe there is better statistics that actually could get used but I will go with that.

Combo of: Chances pregnancy can happen with still using birth control and condoms properly and odds their genetic make up could create a flipper baby.

The only problem with incest is the similarity in their DNA leading to defects.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 10:15 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
(30-10-2012 05:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I think what they did was .001% wrong.. maybe there is better statistics that actually could get used but I will go with that.

Combo of: Chances pregnancy can happen with still using birth control and condoms properly and odds their genetic make up could create a flipper baby.

The only problem with incest is the similarity in their DNA leading to defects.

With all due respect (and I really don't want to revive this debate), the "chances" of certain consequences does not make something inherently wrong. Every time I get in my car, there is a significant chance that I'll kill somebody with it. That doesn't make it wrong to drive a car.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Misanthropik's post
30-10-2012, 08:40 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
I dont think there is any simple law to decide what s wrong and what s right. But usually combination of these rules is applied:
1. Every human should do whatever he/she likes.
2. People should do what benefits society.
3. People are equal.

Anyway i dont see no unique and simple law to decide what s wrong and right. For example:
Polygamy-it s usually illegal. If you re a male and have 10 wives, than 9 other males will be single and unhappy. So you somehow harm them and they might became more aggressive (single males are more likely to kill someone than married males) which is bad for society.
Suicide-it s usually legal as far as i know. But if you make suicide, you will avoid paying taxes for next 40 years. Your government will be really sad about that.

Trolls are holy race. Eduard Khil is our god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PBptSDIh8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 11:22 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(30-10-2012 08:40 PM)Troll Wrote:  If you re a male and have 10 wives, than 9 other males will be single and unhappy. So you somehow harm them and they might became more aggressive (single males are more likely to kill someone than married males) which is bad for society.

I think this is a bullshit reason why it should be illegal. It seems like those 9 other males would be thinking of women as property - as in 'that guy has more than me, it's not fair'. If a woman wants to make the choice to live with a guy who has other wives, that should be up to her. Society be damned Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
31-10-2012, 10:37 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(30-10-2012 03:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 08:19 PM)Near Wrote:  Consider

Shouldn't the answer be "It's none of your goddamn business what two consenting adults do with each other?"

Why would it be 'morally' wrong? Whose morals is it violating? If you have gone against some morals, you have to have someone to tell you what those morals are. Whether that is you, or a dictator, or a societal consensus. If it's not violating their 'morals', and they were keeping it to themselves, then nobody need be offended by their actions. Sure it's a hypothetical situation, but I would honestly be more surprised if this hadn't actually happened before.

Well considering sex has potential risk of producing a baby (even with protection it's still not 100% baby-free) and incestual babies tend to have major defects I'd say considering it has potential to harm an unborn child in a dramatic way (not to mention the emotional scaring of your parents also being your aunt and uncle) it would be that potential babies business as to them having sex.

I must say, first impression of reading the OP is that the OP wants to fuck his sister... Dodgy

Please show me research that shows the increase in risk of physical or mental defect, to children born of incestuous parents.. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but this seems more like a 'common knowledge' sort of anecdote. The actual percentage difference in increased risk may not be as high as it would seem.

As to babies being born with defects, this happens often enough in the population as a whole anyway. There are always babies being born with physical and mental handicaps, whose parents aren't related. Although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the risk was higher for children whose parents are closely related, I don't think that that is enough of a deterrent to keep people who are related from having children. It is legal in many places to marry your first cousin, and their children do not seem to suffer. They are fairly closely related, though granted not as close as siblings.

Also, as stated in the original phrasing of the quandary, "Sara did not get pregnant; and nobody was hurt by their actions." Even if she had gotten pregnant, she could choose to abort the child if the child is showing severe defects while still in the womb.

As for emotional scarring, no matter what your parents relationship to each other, their relationship to you will always be mother and father, not aunt and uncle as you stated. You could keep the information about your relationship to each other from your child until they were older, and more able to handle the information. If you are worried about your child being bullied, you could help to prepare them to deal with being bullied, and you could also have your child attend therapy sessions. Explaining to a child that you can't help who you fall in love with might also help them.

It seems to me that you aren't really explaining how it could possibly be morally wrong, you are just rejecting it for potentially negative health or psychological reasons that may or may not actually occur. It also seems like you might be rejecting it based on the 'ick factor'.

Contribute to the Community Resource!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Near's post
04-11-2012, 10:16 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
(30-10-2012 03:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 08:19 PM)Near Wrote:  Consider

Shouldn't the answer be "It's none of your goddamn business what two consenting adults do with each other?"

Why would it be 'morally' wrong? Whose morals is it violating? If you have gone against some morals, you have to have someone to tell you what those morals are. Whether that is you, or a dictator, or a societal consensus. If it's not violating their 'morals', and they were keeping it to themselves, then nobody need be offended by their actions. Sure it's a hypothetical situation, but I would honestly be more surprised if this hadn't actually happened before.

Well considering sex has potential risk of producing a baby (even with protection it's still not 100% baby-free) and incestual babies tend to have major defects I'd say considering it has potential to harm an unborn child in a dramatic way (not to mention the emotional scaring of your parents also being your aunt and uncle) it would be that potential babies business as to them having sex.

I must say, first impression of reading the OP is that the OP wants to fuck his sister... Dodgy
Are you saying that potential harm to a possible child is the criteria for judging whether a sexual union is morally correct or not?

If so, consensual sexual relationships between a two brothers, two sisters, a father and son, a mother and daughter etc are all morally acceptable and correct.

On the flip-side, sexual relationships between two people with high risk factors, such as both being carriers of genetic diseases or having a family history of cardiac issues or diabetes would be immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Genkaus's post
15-05-2013, 08:40 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 11:12 AM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 10:50 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  I have a rather extensive history in the field of Psychology, and while attending a lecture on morality a few years ago, the professor presented a moral question to the class. To this day, it remains one of my favorite demonstrations of how we, as a society, often use illogic and unreason to label certain things as "right" or "wrong". Bear in mind, I'm not arguing for or against anything by relaying this to the forum, I'm simply presenting an interesting question for others to ponder over. :-)

John and Sara are brother and sister. One Summer, they decide to spend a week at their parents' cabin in the mountains. It will be just the two of them; hiking, fishing, doing whatever it is that they wish to do.

One night, as they sit in front of the fireplace, Sara tells John that she's greatly enjoyed the camping trip and the time it's allowed them to spend together. John agrees, and puts him arm around his sister. After a few moments, Sara looks up at John and, after a moment's hesitation, asks him if he'd like to have sex. John is taken aback by this, but he also finds himself intrigued.

Eventually, the two of them decide that they are open enough with one another to have sex - just one time - and afterward nobody will find out. It will be their special secret. Sara is already on birth control, but John decides to use a condom anyway - "just to be safe". They have sex together, then cuddle for the rest of the night; having been brought closer together. It is the only time they will ever have sex with one another; Sara did not get pregnant; and nobody was hurt by their actions.


Have John and Sara done something morally wrong? If so, what; and in what way is it "wrong"?

I believe I know where your professor got his material from. It's an article from 2000 called "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment" by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. A comment on Full Circle's thread on animal empathy influenced me to start reading my copy of Frans de Waal's book The Bonobo and the Atheist (2013). He mentions the hypothetical brother-sister scenario in reference to "moral decisions":

Quote:Jonathan Haidt...argued that we arrive at moral decisions through intuitive processes. We hardly think about them. Haidt presented subjects with stories of odd behavior (such as a one-night stand between a brother and sister), which they immediately disapproved of. He then challenged every single reason his subjects could come up with until they ran out of arguments. They might say that incest leads to abnormal offspring, but in Haidt's story the siblings used effective contraception, which took care of this problem. Most of his subjects quickly reached the stage of "moral dumbfounding": They stubbornly insisted the behavior was wrong without being able to explain why." (pp. 41-42)

Like the "Trolley problem," this is another example of a thought exercise that challenges people's concepts of morality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: